<strong>Written By:</strong> 4Canada
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-03-13 12:37:14
<a href="/article/233714313-forces-leaders-trying-to-stifle-debate-on-mission">Article Link</a>

And they're determined to maintain this hawkish turn in our military policy by shutting down public debate about it.

In this, they have the full support of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who last week rejected calls for a Parliamentary debate, arguing, bizarrely, that it would endanger the troops. So it's not axe-wielding insurgents that endanger the troops, but sharp questions in the House of Commons.

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142078775666">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142078775666</a>





[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 15, 2006]

   

Gawd, how I hate generals and all officers. "Yes Sir! General Sir! (Click, click) I'll take that hill if it costs the lives of all my men, Sir!" (Click, click)

I was one of about 30 survivors of a company of over 100, ordered into counter attack by a shithead, medal hungry lieutenant, against a Russian army. They just went around us and by the time we broke out, over 2/3 of us were either shot dead, or had their throats cut when taken prisoner.

Nobody questioned the lieutenant what happened to the men. It was war and we were cannonfeed, as are all soldiers.

The same goes on all over, regardless or army, or nationality. Then we, the snipers, were ordered to shoot the screaming wounded trapped between the lines, as they were slowly freezing to death, where no Red Cross pick up of the wounded existed.

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

   

Kinda riminded me of the following from "Sharpe's Rifles" where Patrick Harper talking to Richard Sharpe on the two kinds of officers:


"There are two kinds of officers, sir: killin' officers and murderin' officers. Killin' officers are poor old buggers that get you killed by mistake. Murderin' officers are mad, bad, old buggers that get you killed on purpose - for a country, for a religion, maybe even for a flag. You see that Major Hogan, sir? That's what I call a murderin' officer."

Guess which ones we have over there...



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

I don't know? But boy, we could sure use Richard Sharpe and the Rifles.

---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw

   

What is &#8220;needed&#8221; is those with enough brains to &#8220;get&#8221; the mugs game &#8220;leaders&#8221; would have us play out <br />
It is a Sharp we need, a Gene Sharpe!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/89jpr.html">http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/89jpr.html</a><br />
<br />
&#8220;&#8221;Gene Sharp is the foremost writer in the world today on the subject of non-violent action. His book The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) is widely regarded as a classic. Other important works are two collections of essays, Social Power and Political Freedom (1980) and Gandhi as a Political Strategist (1979), and the more recent Making Europe Unconquerable (1985). More works are forthcoming.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sharp's Approach<br />
<br />
The essence of Sharp's theory of power is quite simple: people in society may be divided into rulers and subjects; the power of rulers derives from consent by the subjects; non-violent action is a process of withdrawing consent and thus is a way to challenge the key modern problems of dictatorship, genocide, war and systems of oppression.<br />
<br />
The two key concepts in Sharp's theory of power are, first, the ruler-subject classification and, second, consent. The ruler-subject classification is one that Sharp uses without detailed justification. The 'ruler' includes 'not only chief executives but also ruling groups and all bodies in command of the State structure' (1980, p. 22). Sharp focuses on the state in his analysis. He spells out the various structures involved in the state, especially the state bureaucracy, police and military, all of which 'are under the command of the person or group which occupies the position of "ruler" at the head of the State' (1980, p. 316). All others besides the rulers are the subjects.&#8221;&#8221;<br />
<br />
0Ghose that so firmly believe in war &#8211; go there <br />
<br />
Gp involve your selve the way Ed Deak did be fore he knew that which he knows now<br />
<p>---<br>to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.<br />
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-<br />
This is mental illness<br />
Lao-Tzo

   

hillier is a hawk and an a$$hole,then again he is a general.

he is one of those that wants to take canadians farther from PEACEKEEPING and into WARMONGERING...don't let rick mercers little a$$ ki$$ing segment fool you ,the man will send your kids to the GRAVE so HE can LOOK GOOD.

you can bet he has his promotion ahead of your kids life.

   

It is indeed sad that there are people who try to sell the idea that there is some sort of honour in killing others. I wonder whether they believe it.

If you find the hawks depressing, take solace in the fact that people like Tom Fox also exist. He's the CPT guy who'se body was found over the weekend. The March 13 edition of Democracy Now! contained an eloquent statement written by him and Tom Chandler. You can read it at DemocracyNow.org. Among other things, it says, 'We reject the use of violent force to save our lives, should we be kidnapped, held hostage or caught in the middle of violent conflict situation.

”We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us.'

   

Chandler's beliefs are indeed noble.

For a group of people to choose to live by those beliefs of their own free will is one thing.

It is their choice, and should be respected as such.

Non-violence has it's place.


Here's an example of a choice I would hope I never have to make:

You know a band of soldiers is approaching a village.

You also know that they will kill everyone in that village.

You have no means of contacting the village to warn them.

You have a weapon that can save the villagers, but only at the cost of killing every last soldier.

If you make a run for the village to warn them, you will get there 5 minutes before the soldiers. However you would not be able to use the weapon.

What would you do?

Myself, I'd use the weapon. I could deal with the blood of murderers on my hands far easier than I could the blood of innocents.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

One last thing: the villagers are completely unarmed.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush